Imagine this: It’s debate night. The stage is set, cameras are rolling, and millions of Americans are tuning in to hear the nation's future leaders discuss critical issues. As the candidates take the stage, they don’t interrupt or insult each other. They certainly don’t mock their opponents’ clothes, hair, or overall appearance. Instead, they engage respectfully, follow a golden rule, and adhere to the sage advice once shared by an elementary school teacher: “If somebody can’t change something about themselves in 30 seconds or less, then you shouldn’t be mentioning it to them.” One can only hope…

This simple yet powerful rule could revolutionize not only debates but the entire election season. Beyond curbing personal attacks, it sets a tone of respect, focuses on policy, and reminds us that leaders are models for the behavior we want to see in society. What would a debate look like if it followed this advice? And how can it teach us all—candidates and voters alike—how to navigate the emotional roller-coaster of election season with more civility? Let’s explore this through the lenses of cognitive science, developmental psychology, political science, and mass communication theory.

Humans are hardwired to make quick judgments based on appearances. It’s a survival mechanism—our brains take shortcuts (known as heuristics) to assess potential threats, often in seconds (Kahneman, 2011). Unfortunately, in modern society, these snap judgments extend to things like someone’s haircut or posture. Cognitive science explains that while these judgments may be automatic, they aren’t always fair, and they often distract us from substantive issues, like policies and qualifications.

In debates, when candidates mock each other, they tap into this cognitive bias, distracting the audience from policy discussions. If debates followed the "30-second rule"—focusing on ideas rather than superficial judgments—the public might engage in more meaningful evaluations........

© Psychology Today